The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods has sent the following letter to the City of Vancouver Mayor and Council in support of Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours, requesting that Council not not refer Policy Report #4 (CD-1 Rezoning – 3365 Commercial Drive and 1695- 1775 East 18th Avenue) to Public Hearing at the Council meeting on April 19, 2016.

CVN represents nearly 30 neighbourhood associations all across the City of Vancouver.

Re: Policy Report to Council for 3365 Commercial Drive is Premature
The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods agrees with Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours (CCAN), a member group of the coalition, regarding this proposal.

We ask that you do not refer Policy Report #4 (CD-1 Rezoning – 3365 Commercial Drive and 1695- 1775 East 18th Avenue) to Public Hearing at the Council meeting scheduled for April 19, 2016.

This rezoning application includes a significant heritage component. At its meeting on May 4, 2015 the Vancouver Heritage Commission stated:

THAT the Vancouver Heritage Commission does not support the application to relocate and rehabilitate 3365 Commercial Drive due to the relocation of the house, its new siting and its condition;

FURTHER THAT the Commission is willing to consider a revised application that would address the position of the heritage house on the site with a reduced, more compatible infill project adjacent.

A revised application was submitted to the City of Vancouver by the developer in December 2015, but staff failed to send that application to the Heritage Commission for reevaluation. While the “infill project adjacent” has been slightly reduced in the revised application, we do not believe that this single change adequately addresses the concerns expressed in the initial evaluation of May 4, 2015. The relocation and the condition of the house have not been addressed at all; the siting has been addressed only minimally.This application should not proceed to Council until the Vancouver Heritage Commission has reviewed the revisions. The evaluation of the Commission is essential information that needs to be provided to Council before a legitimate decision can be made to refer the application to Public Hearing.

While we support solving the housing affordability crisis, we are opposed to the goals of the Affordable Home Ownership Pilot Program in its present form. This staff report proposes making significant changes to the Vancouver Charter as well as major potential changes to land use in expanded areas tied to many arterials on a citywide basis without adequate public consultation. This raises major concerns.

We request that Council not approve in principle the goals of the Affordable Home Ownership
Pilot Program, as described in this report. Instead, we suggest the following:

Withdraw the report and refer it back to staff to include a robust consultation process with affected neighbourhoods based on collaboration:

Include the approved CityPlan Community Vision directions, where they are in place, and which would be implemented on a local community basis;

Complete the Heritage Action Plan and Character House RS Zoning Review first, before considering any proposed new or expanded pilot programs that will affect zoning;

Remove proposed 6 storey and development projects in RS, RT and RM zones unless supported in local area plans; and

Lack of process: This proposal has been brought forward without any community consultation or notification. Further, any anticipated future expansion of the program is proposed to require only development industry and related stakeholders being consulted and includes no requirement for community consultation. This is in contradiction of the city’s stated goals to create a more collaborative relationship with the community.

Location of development: The map included in the report (below) indicates significant areas where 3.5 storeys and/or up to 6 storeys of development could be located. These areas, especially for 6 storeys, as proposed encroach into RS, RT and RM zones, putting heritage, character and older affordable rentals and owner-occupied units at risk of demolition. It also conflicts with the Heritage Action Plan and the Character House RS Review that are in process.

This proposed Pilot Program is an amendment to an existing one, the Interim Rezoning Policy for Increasing Affordable Housing Choices (IRP). The existing program has mainly focused on rental projects. Now that home ownership, mainly strata, is being focused on, and broader areas have been identified for development in this report, there will be increased developer attention and activity. Of further concern is that the previous requirements that pilot projects be located no less than 10 blocks apart appears to have been removed.

Many neighbourhoods have large site developments with potential to provide new multifamily ground oriented development, such as the Jericho Lands, without the loss of existing older rentals and character buildings. What best suits each area should be determined on an individual neighbourhood basis.

Affordability objectives: The economics of the proposed Charter changes will not reasonably increase affordability. The program is proposed to provide housing at 20% below market rate purchase values, but recent real estate prices are going up 15% to 25% in one year. Thus, new projects priced at last year’s already excessive prices, will still be too expensive to make any relevant improvements to affordability.

In some neighbourhoods, especially on the west side, building new ground oriented housing for families is very unlikely to be affordable as described in the report. Conversely it is anticipated that increased land use stimulated by this program would further inflate land values. Adaptively reusing existing character houses with secondary suites and infill is the most accessible way to build more affordable units both for owners and renters. Purpose-built secondary suite rental units also aid home ownership as mortgage helpers and provides much needed, low cost rental housing.

In conclusion: Again, we strongly advise Council not to approve the goals of the Affordable Home Ownership Pilot Program as proposed and instead make the changes described above.

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods was pleased to receive a response from the federal government to our November 30, 2015 input regarding federal assistance for transit and housing in Vancouver.

CVN representatives were invited to explain our views on February 29, 2016 in an extended teleconference with Gurpreet Vinning, Policy Advisor and Special Assistant for Western Canada for the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities (the Honourable Amarjeet Sohi). Below is a link to the follow-up letter sent by CVN on March 18, summarizing the main points of discussion.

With the government expected to announce the new federal budget on March 22, 2016, we feel that the views of neighbourhoods need to be considered in federal decisions. We note that on some topics, there is a gap between what the Mayor of Vancouver is calling for and what many Vancouver neighbourhoods want.

CVN is also advocating for better practices by Vancouver City Hall in listening to and reflecting the wishes of Vancouver citizens, in this case relating especially to conditions for federal funding for infrastructure, transportation and housing in Vancouver.

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods has sent the following letter to the City of Vancouver Mayor and Council, calling on them to endorse CVN’s Principles and Goals for Collaborative Neighbourhood-based Planning, as revised January 8, 2016. This is an updated version of the Principles and Goals document originally issued in 2014.

January 15, 2016
Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilors:

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) represents twenty-six community residents’ associations across the City of Vancouver. Our member associations include a broad cross- section of the Vancouver population. CVN is both non-profit and non-partisan.

CVN came together as a coalition in 2013 and collaboratively developed a shared statement of Principles and Goals for Collaborative Neighbourhood-Based Planning in the City of Vancouver. Almost all political parties in the recent municipal election endorsed these Principles and Goals. To provide additional clarity, CVN has recently updated the April 7, 2014 document to: include transportation planning, specify that “residents” are owners and renters, recognize diversity and remove an outdated reference to the 2014 election.

We call on each of you to:
• Fully and officially endorse the Principles and Goals for Collaborative Neighbourhood-Based Planning in the City of Vancouver (rev. January 8, 2016).

• Ensure that the successful candidates hired as City Manager and Director of Planning fully support the Principles and Goals for Collaborative Neighbourhood-Based Planning in the City of Vancouver.

• Incorporate these Principles & Goals in all City planning including Housing, Transportation and Land Use.

We look forward to hearing from you and to using CVN’s Principles and Goals document as a basis for constructive collaboration between City Council, the Planning Department and Vancouver’s many communities.

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods has sent the following letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, to all the local Vancouver federal MPs, and to key ministers responsible for federal infrastructure and funding. This letter is also available for download as a PDF: CVN Letter to MPs-Nov.30-2015.pdf

November 30, 2015

Federal Members of Parliament, Vancouver Ridings

Re: Federal Assistance for Vancouver Transit and Housing

Dear Vancouver Member of Parliament,

Congratulations on your recent election as a Member of Parliament for the Vancouver area. We look forward to working with you to represent the interests of Vancouver neighbourhoods in Ottawa.

What we are Requesting

We note that the Federal Liberal Party platform included providing infrastructure funding for transit and housing. We heartily applaud these funding initiatives, which we believe are long overdue. However, we have serious concerns about how these funds may be implemented in the City of Vancouver. We therefore are asking that the federal government require conditions be met to address these concerns prior to approving federal infrastructure funding.

Transit and Housing Infrastructure

We are requesting that transit funding be conditional on citizen support for the transit and related land use plans. This also applies to implementation of housing infrastructure funding.

We ask that the new federal Liberal government:

require a full and transparent public process in the City of Vancouver to determine the most publicly supported option for rapid transit on Broadway before federal funding for transit is provided;

support more affordable transit options that provide broad distribution of benefits;

not use Public Private Partnership (P3) funding models;

not use development to fund transit;

ensure that land use patterns around transit, and for new social housing, are an appropriate fit and compatible with our community supported plans; and

extend co-op housing operating agreements that are now expiring.

Additional Requests for Federal Programs to Address Affordability

reinstate the RRAP program in which CMHC gave grants to low income earners for upgrades to older housing for health, safety and energy efficiency;

provide federal tax incentives for rental housing and for the retention of heritage homes; and

use federal powers to make housing in Vancouver more affordable for local residents through protection from an unregulated global housing market.

1) TRANSIT:

Negative impacts of transit tied to high density transit-oriented development

The Metro Vancouver Region’s designation of major transit infrastructure routes as Frequent Transit Development Areas (FTDA) encourages, requires and supports extremely high density development. This is the city and region’s proposed direction for the area referred to as the Broadway Corridor from Nanaimo/Commercial Drive to UBC, 4th Avenue to 16th Avenue. While this plan would involve a radical transformation of the Broadway Corridor and affected neighbourhoods, public consultation has been minimal with community input not reflected in the plan.

The proposed first phase of development of the Corridor is identified to be a subway from Vancouver Community College to Arbutus Street. If the first phase is approved, the city has indicated it would be also looking at land use designations west of Arbutus to UBC in anticipation of a phase two extension of a subway to UBC. This will have significant impacts on neighbourhoods in and surrounding the Broadway Corridor without their support.

Under this scheme for the Broadway Corridor, the City’s Transportation 2040 policies and the KPMG report propose that development could be similar to that of the Cambie Corridor, on the Oakridge Mall scale (redevelopment approval added 11 towers up to 45 storeys in height) as a model for sites such as the Jericho Lands. This scheme would not be an appropriate fit for our neighbourhoods and would destroy its existing character and not provide the kinds of medium density family-oriented housing that are so desperately needed in our city.

Worse yet is the very real possibility that neighbourhoods could be transformed by transit-oriented development and densification well in advance of transit infrastructure that may not be provided for decades, if ever. Meanwhile, intense levels of new development would add further congestion to the already severe impacts of UBC commuter traffic.

Amenities Starved for Transit Funds

Problems arise if subway funding is tied to a Public Private Partnership (P3) model, or if development is used to fund transit. These funding models would divert Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) paid by developers into funds that would pay for transit rather than for amenities for the community and its increased population. This is an unacceptable form of downloading the cost of transit onto cities and communities.

The Future of Transit

It is by no means certain that, in the long term, future transit systems will be dominated by large scale high cost projects. It is clear from the recent transit plebiscite that the public is fed up with continually paying for high cost transit, and is demanding more accountability.

Proponents of a Broadway Corridor subway would like to boil the choice of options down to efficiency and “megaproject” economic stimulus. However, the broader implications of competing public transit visions for Vancouver and its neighbourhoods are vastly more complicated and significant.

There are other options to promoting a nodal pattern of high-rise development through high-cost underground rapid transit on a single corridor. Others advocate for a high-capacity, at-grade transit network that is more evenly distributed and reinforces a pattern and scale of urban development that is more affordable, livable, socially productive and supports businesses on a broader city-wide scale.

Studies have shown that a more evenly distributed transit network is also more cost effective (see below results of a UBC- based study). These studies indicate that it is also vastly more sustainable from an environmental perspective to replace existing fossil- fuelled diesel buses with a combination of higher-capacity, zero-emission electric streetcars and articulated trolleybuses. The existing transit grid could have more frequent transit and expanded routes throughout the city and on key routes of heavy demand.

For the price of this….

We can have this…

Equivalent electric streetcar network deliverable for same cost of proposed Broadway Corridor subway (Condon, et al, 2008, The case for the tram; learning from Portland, Sustainability by Design – An examination of alternatives to an underground extension of the Millennium Line to UBC, Foundational Research Bulletin, No. 6.)

How This Affects Us

There is a real danger that our neighbourhoods, and in particular larger sites such as the Jericho Lands, could be planned and built based on an outdated approach and faulty assumptions. Many informed sources suggest that a nodal based approach to transit, based on transit megaprojects and high rise development, is probably not the way of the future as some have suggested.

The Federal Liberal Party platform said only that they would support “rapid” transit on Broadway, but rapid transit can take a variety of forms other than a subway. Rapid transit could instead be streetcars or rapid electric trolley buses, or other combinations of grade level transit at a fraction of the cost as noted in the example above.

2) HOUSING:

Social and Co-op Housing

The co-op housing projects built under CMHC programs were covered by operating agreements that provided federal funding supplements. Many of the operating agreements are expiring and need to be renewed to ensure ongoing public ownership and subsidized rents for the most vulnerable in our society. We understand that the new federal government is now considering these extensions and we strongly support this.

New infrastructure funding should be provided for new social and co-op housing projects subject to appropriate design controls to ensure that the size, scale and design elements are consistent and compatible with our local area plans and are community supported.

Reinstate the RRAP Program – In addition to funding for social or co-op housing , the federal government could reinstate the RRAP program in which CMHC gave grants to low income earners for upgrades to older housing for health, safety and energy efficiency.

Federal Tax Policies as Incentives for Rentals and Heritage Retention

Tax advantages are needed to encourage long-term ownership of lower-rent buildings and incentives for retention and upgrade of solid older buildings. This helps to reduce inflationary pressure on rents and loss of more affordable older rental stock.

As an incentive to retain heritage buildings only, capital gains tax laws should be amended, for up to two secondary suites on one house lot to be allowed to still qualify for principal residence exemption from capital gains tax as long as they are non-strata family or rental and the owner occupies the main unit. Perhaps long term owners could be allowed to also occupy one of the secondary units. This provides incentives for heritage retention while also encouraging more rental units and providing mortgage helpers to assist home ownership.

Protection from Global Housing Market – The purchase of housing is largely unaffordable for local residents in Vancouver. Action is needed to protect communities from an unregulated global housing market in which local residents are at an unfair disadvantage since local real estate is becoming disconnected from the local economy and work force. We ask the federal government to correct and better enforce tax and other regulations, as well as to create additional preventative measures to protect the local housing market.

In Conclusion, we hope you will deliver this message to the Prime Minister and your fellow MPs and ensure our communities’ interests are represented. We would like to meet with you to discuss plans for transit, land use and housing affordability in Vancouver. Please confirm receipt of this letter and let us know when would be a good time to meet.

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) strongly supports improved public transit; however, CVN has not taken a yes or no position on the transit plebiscite. There are many concerns about the proposal in general that the public needs to be informed on.

In the lead-up to the Transit Plebiscite, there has been much public debate about increasing taxes and the problems with TransLink. However, there has been little discussion about some of the details of the proposed transportation package, and its implications for massive development, especially along the Broadway corridor. Before the public can determine whether to vote yes or no, this discussion needs to take place so that voters can make an informed choice.

In a recent BC Supreme Court decision, it was ruled that the public should be provided all relevant information, presented concisely and intelligibly, in order to enable informed public input.

In particular, we call on the City to more clearly, explicitly and fully inform the public about plans for the Broadway corridor to facilitate comprehensive public discussion about these proposals. In order to find out what is really proposed for the Broadway Corridor, one must wade through a maze of links and many reports. The facts are not being clearly set out for the average person to be informed.

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods is concerned that voters are being asked to make a hugely important decision about the future of transit in Vancouver based on inadequate and confusing information. In its Principles and Goals document CVN states,

“… a goal of the planning process must be to ensure that all pertinent information is readily available to all concerned. To this end, the planning process must:

Include detailed and accurate information on projected and actual impacts of major development projects and other significant planning decisions or policy changes

Ensure that information provided to the public is timely, accurate, detailed, and complete.”

The information provided in the lead-up to the Transit Plebiscite relating to the Broadway corridor does not meet these goals, and has not led to a full public discussion of these key issues. See the Appendix, below for further details of the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods’ concerns.

##

Appendix: Concerns about the Transit Plebiscite

Scale of development along Broadway Corridor: It has been stated in city documents that if a subway were approved, development along the Broadway Corridor would be similar to the Oakridge and South Cambie areas of the Cambie Corridor. The City’s KPMG report gives Oakridge and Cambie/Marine as examples of development scale for the Broadway Corridor. Oakridge mall includes 11 towers of up to 45 storeys in height. This is out of scale and character with the local area plans along the Broadway Corridor. Will Broadway be lined with tall towers?

Frequent Transit Development Area (FTDA): The Broadway Corridor is proposed as a future Frequent Transit Development Area from 4th Ave. to 16th Ave., Commercial Dr. to UBC. This is a regional designation that gives TransLink and Metro Vancouver influence on land use decisions. Will this lead to Metrotown scale development in the entire Broadway Corridor that overrides local area plans and neighbourhood character? Will local influence in land use decisions be diminished even further?

Using development to fund transit: Even if the sales tax increase is approved for transit, it will cover only a portion of the proposed costs. The federal and provincial governments have yet to commit to their portion. Transportation 2040 identifies development as a possible funding source for transit. Will development be used to fund transit, with or without the sales tax funding? Will this not lead to a loss of civic amenities such as parks, community centres, libraries, daycare, etc.? These are supposed to be funded by development charges, such as DCLs & CACs. Should transit, which is not a civic responsibility, be funded by these development charges? Will this type of transit funding result in large density bonuses above what is allowed under local plans?

Development preceding transit: If development precedes transit completion, there will be more people without adequate transit, which will make congestion even worse than it is today. The first phase to Arbutus is part of the initial 10-year plan, so it could be a decade before it is operating. The City and TransLink anticipate a phase 2 from Arbutus to UBC in a second 10-year plan. The Jericho Lands, west of Alma, have been identified for transit-oriented development. However, if development of the Jericho Lands is underway now, and the public transit to support it will not be available until the second phase, further increased congestion is inevitable. Is this going to be like the Evergreen Line where there was increased congestion during 20 years of development before the transit got built?

Choice of technology: The subway has been pre-selected for this plebiscite without allowing public input on other options, such as Light Rail Transit, Rapid Buses, etc. Although TransLink did do some consultation on the various transit options, the public has not been given an opportunity to choose. What is the level of support from current Broadway businesses and affected neighbourhoods for various transit options and where is that published?

Broadway transit: above or below ground? TransLink shows the proposed SkyTrain route from VCC to Arbutus, but it doesn’t show what locations are above grade and what are below grade as a tunnel. What exactly is proposed?

Bored tunnel or cut & cover: The City says they are opposed to cut and cover, but there is no guarantee the subway portion will be a bored tunnel. Is a bored tunnel priced in the budget? Will this be a situation like the Canada Line where the initial design called for a bored tunnel and a contract change allowed cut and cover to save costs?

Transit service for the whole city: Vancouver, designed for streetcars before the automobile age, is a grid of arterials. Anyone in the City is within a 5 to 10 minute walk from an arterial. If most of the funding is put into just the Broadway Corridor, how will the rest of city get equally improved transit service? While some new B-lines are being added, not enough improvements are identified to better the transit across the city.

Representatives of 25 Community Groups seek early meeting with Mayor Robertson

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods would like to thank all the participants in this year’s election for their hard work and efforts to better the City we all love.

We look forward to working with the elected Council and Mayor in helping to establish a better relationship between the city and its neighbourhoods.

Our recently developed Principles and Goals document was held up by many candidates as a blueprint for solving this issue, and was endorsed by all parties except Vision.

We appreciate the Mayor’s apology for mistakes made and his promise to do better. Certainly we want to collaborate with Vision Vancouver to ensure that neighbourhoods continue to be the buildings blocks of our city’s future.

We will be contacting the Mayor shortly to arrange a meeting with him at his earliest convenience. We look forward to a new relationship with the Mayor and Council, one which is beneficial to both groups, and, most importantly, beneficial to the best interests of the City of Vancouver.

In order to avoid any confusion, the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods wishes to make clear that the organization known as A Better City is not affiliated or connected in any way with the Coalition.

We note that A Better City has taken a full-page advertisement in the Vancouver Courier tomorrow announcing their preferred slate for the November 15 election. While welcoming all citizen input into the municipal election, we re-confirm that the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods and its member associations are non-partisan groups that do not endorse slates, parties or candidates.

Mayor Gregor Robertson rejects collaborative process between the city and its neighbourhoods

In an interview with the Vancouver Courier on October 30, 2014, Mayor Gregor Robertson acknowledged that the Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods’ principles that promote a collaborative process with the city and communities for community planning was “worthy”, however, he rejected it saying it “doesn’t align with the city’s existing policy”. The Coalition is disappointed to hear this position from the current Mayor on behalf of the ruling Vision party.

The Coalition asked all the parties running candidates in the 2014 civic election if they would support the Coalition’s principles. All parties, except for Vision, supported the principles, including the NPA, Greens, COPE, Cedar, Vancouver First, One City and independent candidate Bob Kasting. This was confirmed in public at the Coalition’s candidates meeting on October 15, 2014 in front of media and an audience of about 400.

“The Principles,” said Coalition Co-Chair Larry Benge, “promote a collaborative process consistent with the city’s CityPlan practice to implement growth that is sustainable, affordable, and livable. Yet Mayor Robertson dismisses this as simply a means to avoid change, when in fact it is a means to accommodate change.”

We are also concerned that the Mayor, in the same interview, said our members come too often to present their opinions to Council. “We conclude that Mayor Robertson does not want to hear alternative views,” said Co-Chair Fern Jeffries. “He wants citizens to refrain from presenting their views, and the opinions of their neighbourhood associations, to our elected officials. We represent a more democratic perspective.”

Further, Mayor Robertson is unaware who the neighbourhood associations are, even after his six years in office. He dismissed them as politically motivated when in fact they are long established non-partisan groups and associations, some with more than 50 years history, with the objective to represent their neighbourhoods on issues that concern them. This is a very important role in our democracy particularly because Vancouver does not have a ward system or any other systematic way of hearing from neighbourhoods.

The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods is a group of 25 such associations and groups that came together in the summer of 2013. The Coalition is a vehicle for citizen engagement, for inclusion, and for a collaborative partnership in community engagement. We look forward to a more positive relationship with City Council.